Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Proceedings of The Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 25 30,

2003 Copyright 2003 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1 880653 -60 5 (Set); ISSN 1098 6189 (Set)

Time-Domain Coupled Analysis of Deepwater TLP, and Verification against Model Tests
Harald Ormberg, Rolf Baarholm and Carl Trygve Stansberg
Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute A/S (MARINTEK) Trondheim, Norway

A time-domain global hydrodynamic analysis of a TLP in 1830 m water depth is carried out. Extreme metocean conditions in the Gulf of Mexico are simulated, including waves, current and wind in noncollinear configurations. 3-hours storms are analyzed. Wave loads on the hull are modeled by use of second-order diffraction analysis (WAMIT), including low-frequency (LF), wave-frequency (WF) as well as high-frequency (HF, springing) excitation. In addition, viscous drag forces on the hull due to relative motions in waves and current are included through a distributed slender-body load model, and wind loads are included through wind coefficients. The vessel motions are dynamically coupled in the time domain to the top-end tether and riser tensions, through detailed FEM (Finite-Element-Modeling) assuming slender-body hydrodynamics of this part of the system. The RIFLEX-C software is used. Using the SIMO software, de-coupled analyses are performed for comparison. Observed coupling effects are analyzed and discussed. The results are compared to data from 1:87 scaled model tests. Irregular wave and wind records from the actual experiments are used as input in the simulations, making direct comparison of time series and spectra possible. The capability of the numerical model to reproduce observed effects in vessel motions as well as in tether and riser tensions is evaluated, including LF-, WF- and HF contributions. Based on the comparison, hydrodynamic parameters of the numerical model are adjusted to match the measurements. Large damping contributions from the deep-water risers and tensions are identified. A good correspondence is observed between final calibrations and model tests.

depths in the range 1000m 3000m, model test verification with full depth modeling becomes difficult or impossible, and combinations with reliable analytical tools become necessary. The so-called fully coupled analysis approach, where the floaters responses are coupled in the time domain to the dynamical behavior of slender elements such as risers, moorings and tethers (for TLPs), is a useful tool for handling of these problems. This gives a more proper modeling of all relevant interaction effects compared to the conventional analysis where the largevolume floater is de-coupled from the slender elements. In recent years, various implementations and applications have been presented and discussed in the literature, see e.g. Davies (1991), Ormberg & Larsen (1998), Lken et al. (1999), Kim et al. (2000) and Ma et al. (2000). The required computer simulation time is certainly longer than for decoupled analysis, but in recent years the computer power has increased dramatically, and 3-hours storm simulations of complete systems can now be run in real time speed or even faster. Thus coupled analysis tools are now more frequently applied in deep-water system analysis. In the present paper, a fully coupled analysis approach, originally described in Ormberg et al. (1997), is applied in the global analysis of a deepwater TLP system. A finite-element model (FEM) of the complete system is established, with a large-volume model of the floater being represented as a single node in the total system. By comparison to an equivalent de-coupled model, specific coupling effects between the floater and the tethers/risers are identified and discussed. In particular, the characteristics of the low-frequency surge motions, vertical springing motions and resulting high-frequency tether loads are investigated. A case study highlighting these effects for a TLP system in 1830m water depth, based on an analysis carried out as a part of a DeepStar project, is presented. Comparisons to model test data are made, with adjustment of the model to match actual measured records. The same TLP system has been analyzed previously in a different study by Kim et al. (2000).

KEY WORDS: Tension-Leg Platform (TLP); Time-domain coupled analysis; Deep Water; Verification. INTRODUCTION
The need for advanced numerical computer tools for the global analysis of deepwater floating systems is growing as the oil industry is going into deeper and deeper waters. This has several reasons. First, the deep water itself represents new technical challenges and phenomena to be explored and taken into account in the system design. Second, for water

Coupled Numerical Analysis In a coupled analysis approach the floater force model is introduced in a detailed Finite Element (FE) model of the complete slender structure


system, such as mooring lines, tendons and risers. Non-linear timedomain analysis considering irregular wave loading, low- and high frequency environmental loading is required to give an adequate representation of the coupled floater/slender structure response at every time instant. It should be noted that this approach yields dynamic equilibrium between the forces acting on the floater, moorings and risers and structural response at every time instant. The output from such analysis will be floater motions as well as slender structure response description. In the present study the computer program system RIFLEX-C has been used for coupled analysis. The approach is based on combining the force models from a general vessel motion simulation program, SIMO (2001) with a non-linear finite element program tailor made for analysis of marine risers and slender structures, RIFLEX (2001). The applied FE procedure is a displacement formulation that allows for unlimited displacements and rotations in the three-dimensional space. Moorings and risers are modeled by use of bar or beam type of elements. The load model for these slender structures accounts for weight, buoyancy and hydrodynamic loads. A generalized Morison type of load model is used to compute hydrodynamic loads on the slender bodies. Spring and friction models simulate seabed contact. The interaction effects between the waves and floater are described by a set of frequency dependent coefficients for inertia, damping and exciting forces. The frequency-dependent added mass and damping coefficients are converted to retardation function, and the frequency dependent force is included in form of convolution integral, introducing a memory-effect in time domain. The wave excitation forces, which include quadratic sum-frequency forces, wave-frequency forces and quadratic difference-frequency forces are calculated by use of FFTtechnique, assuming the floater in mean position. This may be done for a range of headings to allow for yawing. The methodology of the approach is described in Ormberg et al. (1997). Application on a turret moored tanker study is presented in Ormberg & Larsen (1998). De-Coupled Analysis In de-coupled analysis approach the floater force model is identical to the model applied in coupled analysis as described above. The slender structures, however, are represented in a simplified way in terms of non-linear positioning forces. Thus the slender system inertia- and velocity dependent forces on the floater are neglected, if not imposed in the floater model in a simplified way. The de-coupled approach may lead to inconsistencies in the inertia properties of the dynamical TLP model, since the real effective mass for low-frequency hull motions will include more of the riser / tether mass, compared to that of wave-frequency motions (see Figure 1).

the model tests were applied as input to the simulations, and some system parameters were calibrated, if necessary, to match the measurements. All data are given in full scale. The work was carried out as a part of a DeepStar study, and the same TLP system has also been investigated previously by others (Kim et. al., 2000). Model test data were available from DeepStar Theme Structures experiments carried out in scale 1:87 at MARIN, The Netherlands.

Figure 1. Tendon/riser inertia contribution for LF-surge vs. WF-surge (illustration only not properly scaled). Physical Model The full-scale TLP hull, tendon and riser configuration are illustrated in Figure 2, which also indicates the applied coordinate system. The hull is positioned by 12 tendons (three tendons at each column), and 12 risers. An outline of the tendon and riser model is presented in Figure 5. In general the tendons and the only drilling riser are made of hollow PVC tube. The eleven production risers were made of steel wire with nylon coating. A spring to account for the overall axial stiffness is introduced at the lower end. In addition there are the lower and upper end attachments.
200' T12 T11 T10 NW NE T1 Tendon porche T2 T3


20' 20' 30' 60'


SW T9 T8 T7 280'


15o 30o T4 30o



In this work, a case study is presented where the coupled analysis approach is applied on a TLP system in 2000 m water depth. Comparisons to a de-coupled analysis of the same system are included to demonstrate coupling effects. Shortcomings and difficulties in applying the de-coupled analysis are discussed. The results are also compared to model test data. To obtain the most direct comparison, the numerical simulations are carried out according to the model-themodel approach, i.e. to simulate the actual model tests as closely as possible. Thus, details of the actual test set-up were accurately implemented in the numerical model, wave and wind recordings from





DRAFT 103'

Figure 2. Hull configuration and coordinate definition


Numerical Model In the present study, the numerical model was made to match the reported physical test set-up as closely as possible, in order to obtain an optimal basis for direct comparison. (Following this procedure, one will encounter that some details may be specific to the experiments, and will be different in a final design / verification analysis of the system). In the efforts to establish the accurate numerical coupled analysis model, assumptions to the physical model had also to be made for some detailed parts not reported. TLP Hull Model Linear and quadratic hydrodynamic coefficients were established from first and second order analysis with the computer program WAMIT (WAMIT(2000)). The panel model of the hull used in the analysis is depicted in Figure 3. 9080 panels were utilized to describe the hull,

however symmetry conditions were imposed. The second order analysis performed to find quadratic sum-frequency wave excitation load coefficients also requires also parts of the mean free surface to be discretized. The panel mesh of the free surface is shown in Figure 4. 7392 panels were used inside a truncation radius of 96m, however symmetry conditions were imposed. Low-frequency drift force coefficients and quadratic sum-frequency force coefficients were obtained assuming the TLP to be restrained. Viscous loads on the hull were included using the drag-term of Morisons formula for the pontoons and the columns. Current velocity and fluid particle kinematics due to waves are included and the viscous force is integrated to instantaneous wave elevation in the coupled analysis. Wind force coefficients were established based on experimental results. analysis. Tendons and Risers For the coupled analysis approach the finite element model of the tendons and risers consists of bar elements only, i.e. bending- and torsional stiffness is neglected. The mass properties are modeled according to reported measures. Hydrodynamic forces are modeled by means of the generalized Morisons equation. The numerical model includes the spring and the bare tendon and the bare riser body.

Physical model

Numerical model

Upper end attachments Force transducer

Figure 3. Panel model used for first-order WAMIT analysis.

Bare tendon/riser Bare tendon/riser

Spring Lower end attachments


Figure 5. General layout of physical and numerical model of tendons and risers. In the de-coupled analysis the tendons and risers are represented by mass less springs with specified pre-tension in initial configuration. The stiffness properties and the lengths of the springs are similar to their physical counterparts. In order to get the correct horizontal stiffness, the pre-tensions in the springs are adjusted to account for lack of mass. The inertia contributions of the tendons and risers are included in the TLP hull inertia matrix. Figure 4. Panel model of the free surface for the second-order WAMIT


Environment Conditions Two different extreme GoM conditions were included in the DeepStar study. The conditions are summarized in Table 1 and directions are illustrated in Figure 6. Additionally, tests were also run in hurricane waves only. In the present paper, we concentrate on the hurricane and the waves-only conditions Note that irregular wave and wind records from the actual experiments are used as input in the simulations, making direct comparison of time series and spectra possible. The applied current depth profile was established based on reported measurements and the velocity kept constant during the analysis. Thus fluctuations in the laboratory generated current velocity and direction are neglected in the numerical analysis. Table 1. DeepStar Theme Structures Metocean Criteria Design cases 100 year 100 year Hurricane Loop Current Wave Spectrum Jonswap Jonswap Significant wave height m 12.19 6.1 Peak period s 14.0 11.0 Current Normal Loop Current Surface current velocity m/s 1.06 2.13 Wind Spectrum API API Hourly wind at 10 m m/s 41.13 22.35 The decay tests (heave/pitch) indicate a relatively high damping level. This is mainly due to large damping contribution from the tendons/riser models (made partly of PVC-tubes) to heave, pitch and roll motions. To match this damping level a linear damping corresponding to approx. 7% of critical damping was added to numerical model of the TLP hull for these degrees of freedom. This comes in addition to radiation damping contribution, the viscous damping contribution from pontoons and columns and the material damping introduced to the FE-model of tendons/risers of approximately 2% relative damping at the natural periods for heave, roll and pitch. The computed and measured natural periods are presented in Table 2. To fulfill accurately the results from the pullout test the pretension level in the tendons was increased by 5% as compared to the reported measurements, see Figure 7. Wind force coefficient and current drag coefficient where established based on wind only tests and current only test. For applied drag coefficients, see Table 3. The current loads on tendons and risers are in the de-coupled analysis included as specified constant forces acting in the TLPs center of gravity. Similarly, the damping effects from the tendons and risers accounted for through the linear damping matrix. Table 2. TLP decay tests Measured Computed Heave Pitch Surge 3.9 s 4.0 s ~225 s 3.9 s 4.0 s ~225 s



Computed Adjusted to hurricane 3.9 s 4.1 s ~225 s

Computed No adjustment to reported system 3.6 s 3.8 s


Figure 6. Wind, wave and current directions in the DeepStar 100 year hurricane and 100-year loop current conditions


Initial Adjustments The initial adjustments to model test set up considered Pretension in tendons and risers Static restoring forces, included tension in individual tendons and risers Natural periods and damping level Steady wind and current tests In addition time series of wind velocity based on wind force recordings and current depth profiles based on reported measurements had to be estimated. With respect to some of the details, the model test report does not give a precise description of the physical model of the tendons nor the risers. Most critical is the lack of information on the total axial stiffness, which includes the contribution from the PVC-tube/wire part. Estimation of the total axial stiffness for the individual tendons and risers as close to the physical model as possible, was based on the heave, roll and pitch decay tests applying an iterative procedure.
(kN) Horzontal load (kN) Horizontal Load


Measured (Hurricane setup) Measured (Loop-current setup) Computed (Reported pretension) Computed (1.05*pretension)




0 0 25 50 75 100 125

Horizontaloffset offset(m) (m) Horizontal

Figure 7. Static offset comparison computed versus measured.


Table 3. Applied drag coefficients Drag coefficients Pontoons Columns Tendons Risers Final Analysis Description Based on the final calibration against the model test data, the low frequency pitch drift moment from the linear WAMIT model was empirically multiplied by a factor of 3. This difference may be caused by the lack of off-diagonal terms in the drift excitation formulation applied, where Newmans approximation was assumed. The drag coefficient applied for columns increased to from 1.0 to 1.5 in the waves only condition. For tendons and risers, the drag coefficients were empirically increased from the initial value of 1.0 to 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. Additional linear damping was introduced into the numerical model to account for the damping contribution from tendons/risers made of PVC- tubes. The additional damping applied in roll/pitch was 3.5% of critical damping (reduced by 3.5% from initial calibration) and 7 % in heave. Damping contributions from tendons and risers on low-frequency surge and sway motions were in the de-coupled analysis accounted for by inserting linear damping equal to approximately 80% of critical damping. Results Statistics of computed responses versus measured responses from the hurricane waves only condition are presented in Table 4. Results for the hurricane condition are found in Table 5. Statistics (mean, standard deviation, observed maxima and minima) are presented for the total (no-filtered) responses and for the following frequency ranges: LF: 0.000 Hz 0.032 Hz WF: 0.032 Hz 0.199 Hz HF: 0.199 Hz 0.398 Hz 1.5 1.0 (1.5 waves only) 1.1 1.2

Table 4. Waves only: Statistics from coupled analysis vs. measurements (Normalized numbers)
mean Surge Tot -3.91 LF -3.91 WF Pitch Tot -0.242 LF -0.242 WF HF Tendon 1 Tot 26.0 LF 26.0 WF HF Coupled Analysis std max 1.0 0.879 0.476 1.0 0.118 0.901 0.356 1.0 0.189 0.996 0.292 min mean -3.84 -3.84 Measurements std max min

-0.427 -7.68 -1.74 -7.41 1.83 -1.48 4.19 -0.383 3.39 2.11 31.8 27.2 4.34 1.92 -6.70 -1.06 -4.84 -2.06 21.7 25.6 -3.99 -2.04

1.04 -0.875 -8.20 0.926 -1.67 -7.20 0.482 1.80 -1.67 5.67 0.390 4.68 2.89 31.0 25.8 3.36 3.40 -9.69 -1.39 -5.35 -3.10 19.5 24.3 -4.97 -3.31

-0.216 1.27 -0.216 0.182 1.05 0.356 24.7 24.7 0.929 0.164 0.818 0.357

Table 5. Hurricane: Statistics from coupled analysis vs. measurements (Normalized numbers)
mean Surge Tot -23.2 LF -23.2 WF Pitch Tot -1.62 LF -1.62 WF HF Tendon 1 Tot 24.6 LF 24.6 WF HF Coupled Analysis std max 1.0 0.931 0.363 1.0 0.232 0.869 0.361 1.0 0.528 0.802 0.241 -20.4 -20.9 1.32 2.31 -0.993 3.09 2.39 29.7 26.5 3.30 1.78 min -26.3 -25.7 -22 -9.02 -2.59 -4.58 -2.34 21.4 23.0 -2.80 -1.74 mean -22.7 -22.7 Measurements std max 1.22 1.17 0.364 -18.7 -19.5 1.36 min -27.2 -26.4 -1.39

-2.33 -2.33

1.20 2.77 -9.72 0.410 -0.431 -3.53 0.832 3.99 -4.66 0.480 2.83 -2.75 1.05 0.670 0.707 0.357 29.6 26.2 3.26 2.59 19.9 22.0 -2.88 -2.54

23.8 23.8

Coupled vs. de-coupled TLP analysis The numerical modeling by a coupled and a de-coupled analysis approach are basically quite different. In a coupled model, all dynamics is solved through a time-stepping algorithm for each finite element, from the sea bottom to the surface-piercing floater. In the de-coupled case, risers and tethers are simply modeled as spring elements in a nonlinear oscillator, the corresponding mean drag forces and damping must be included through empirical forces and damping matrices, and a distributed mass is normally reduced to an equivalent point mass. The latter leads to inconsistencies in the de-coupled dynamical TLP model, since the real effective mass for low-frequency hull motions will include more of the riser / tether mass, compared to that of wavefrequency motions. In the present case with a TLP in 1830m, this difference is found to be around 10% of the total surge mass.

Note that all results presented herein are normalized by the standard deviation of corresponding total response from coupled analysis. Computed response spectra versus measured response spectra for the hurricane waves only condition are shown in Figure 8 through Figure 10. Spectra from the hurricane condition are found in Figure 11 through Figure 13 The pitch and up-wave tension spectra, Figure 14 and Figure 15, illustrate the effect of reduced damping contribution from the tendons and risers. The results are discussed in the following section.


Figure 8. Waves only: Measured and computed LF surge spectra

Figure 11. Hurricane: Measured and computed LF surge spectra

Figure 9. Waves only: Measured and computed pitch spectra. Note: Different frequency range from Figure 8.

Figure 12. Hurricane: Measured and computed pitch spectra. Note: Different frequency range from Figure 11.

Figure 10. Waves only: Measured and computed tension spectra

Figure 13. Hurricane: Measured and computed tension spectra


relative damping in waves without current, and 40% when current is added. Similarly, the coupling from risers / tethers also contribute significantly to the damping of high-frequency springing motions modeled here through Rayleigh damping. The resulting relative damping contribution in a realistic case is found to be in the range around 2%, which makes a significant addition to the other (hydrodynamic) damping, which is estimated to around 1%. Thus the water depth has a large influence. (In the direct comparison to the actual model tests, discussed below, a considerable amount of artificial linear damping was added to match the effect of tether model material used, but that is particular to these model tests and of less general interest). Numerical Simulations vs. Model Tests In general, the RIFLEX-C simulations compare quite well with the hurricane condition model test data, both in waves only and in combined waves, current & wind. Not only the statistics, but also the underlying time series and spectra show good agreement. This applies to floater motions as well as to tether and riser forces. There are a few exceptions, but the overall picture is quite satisfactory. Also when different frequency ranges are considered separately, the comparison is reasonable, and critical nonlinear contributions such as LF surge & tensions, and high-frequency heave/pitch & tensions, are well reflected in the simulations. For LF surge, which is over-critically damped, it is somewhat complex to interpret the drift excitation clearly distinguished from damping effects. This is in particular the case with current present, where the damping is particularly high, and current fluctuations in the experiments leads to very long-periodic motions seen as a significant increase in the spectrum around f=0. But the interpretation made indicates that the excitation model, including potential theory as well as viscous drag effects from the free surface zone, works quite well. Wave-current combination also contributes to viscous drift through the relative-wave formulation. It is seen from the de-coupled analysis that the viscous excitation (represented by a strip model) is quite significant, representing around 30% of the total wave drift in waves only, and some more with current present. The mean offset in waves only, as well as in waves, current and wind, is also modeled quite well. Figure 15. Hurricane: Computed tension spectra original and reduced damping contribution from tendons The above problems are properly taken care of in the coupled approach in a straightforward way. Thus the coupled analysis will often be a preferred approach for TLP modeling. On the other hand, this straightforward way may be less robust, and requires a much more careful and accurate modeling of all details. For example, when comparing to model tests, direct comparison to test data requires quite detailed knowledge of a range of test set-up parameters. At the same time, it also requires more computer time, but the rapid development of computers makes this difference less and less relevant. In the present RIFLEX-C simulations, 3-hours storms took less than 3 hours to run. The comparison of results have shown and quantified quite significant damping contributions from tethers and risers in 1830 m water depth. In the coupled analysis, wave-drift induced low-frequency surge oscillations (which are much more important than the mean wave drift offset) are over-critically damped (80% - 100% relative damping). From the de-coupled analysis we see that most of this arises from the coupling effects, while the damping on the hull accounts for 20% The spectra also show that the measured overcritical surge damping levels are quite well reproduced with the present model most of the contribution is from the tethers / risers, but the strip model also gives viscous hull damping. The present use of Cd=1.5 for the pontoons, and 1.5 for the hull columns in waves only and 1.0 in waves + current, are empirically found to give suitable comparison in excitation as well as damping. The wave drift damping is assumed to be a minor effect compared to the viscous contributions in this case, and was not explicitly modeled. Since no additional surge damping was found to be necessary to tune the coupled analysis to measurements, the drag model must therefore also take into account the drift damping part. Thus the Cd values chosen for the hull are perhaps slightly too high if they should reflect only the real viscous part. Furthermore, an accurate estimation of the Cd values in waves + current is in general difficult from these measurements alone, due to the very high damping and since the presence of the current makes it more difficult to sort out the different contributions. The overall picture is that for the pitch motions and tether / riser tension responses, the comparisons show that the RIFLEX-C model predicts quite well both the LF, WF and springing type of contributions. There are some, exceptions, however, such as effects from current fluctu-

Figure 14. Hurricane: Computed pitch spectra original and reduced damping contribution from tendons


ations (not included in the numerical model), and WF up-wave tensions which are somewhat over-predicted around a period of 10 s. The latter should be seen in connection with a corresponding under-prediction of down-wave tensions (not shown in the figures). For pitch (which certainly is quite small for a TLP), a LF part is clearly observable, and the empirical increase factor of 3 from the initial slowly varying drift moment excitation gives a reasonable comparisons. The second-order excitation model with use of full QTF for sum-frequency heave and pitch motions is seen to work well, both in the resonant range around 4s, and in the range 5s 10s where the measurements show some contributions. Springing oscillations are observed to be clearly nonnegligible, even with the high damping observed: For the springing damping, the actual choice of tether model material (PVC) lead to quite total high damping in these model tests (10%). This was not directly modeled in the RIFLEX-C model, but the addition of 7% artificial damping shows quite good comparison to the experiments. In real cases, however, the material damping from e.g. steel is assumed to be considerably lower, although still dominant (around 2% in this case in 1800m depth).

Some deviations observed between model tests and simulations are probably due to current fluctuations and VIV on hull and tendons/risers, which were not included in the numerical model. A general experience is that fully coupled numerical analysis is quite sensitive to details in the actual set-up, and careful numerical modeling based on relevant input from experiments is required.

This paper includes work funded by the DeepStar CTR 5401 program, and the permission to publish is gratefully acknowledged.

Kim, M.H., Tahar, A. and Kim, Y.B. (2000), Variability of TLP Motion Analysis Against Various Design Methodologies / Parameters, Proc., ISOPE 2000 Conf., Seattle, WA, USA, pp. Lken, A. E., Sdahl, N. and Hagen, . (1999), Efficient Integrated Analysis Methods for Deepwater Platforms, OTC 1999 Ma, W, Lee, MY, Zou, J and Huang, EW (2000). Deepwater Nonlinear Coupled Analysis Tool, Proc OTC 12085, Houston, TX. Ormberg, H, Fylling, I. J., Larsen, K. and Sdahl, N. Coupled Analysis of Vessel Motions and Mooring and Riser System DYNAMIC, OMAE, Yokohama, Japan, 1997. Ormberg, H. and Larsen, K. (1998), Coupled Analysis of Floater Motion and Mooring Dynamics for a Turret Moored Ship, Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 20, pp. 55-67. RIFLEX Program Documentation, SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway (2001). (Version 3.0). SIMO Users Manual, MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway (2001). (Version 3.0) WAMIT Users manual, versions 6.0, 6.0pc, 5.3s. Wamit inc. and Department of Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 2000


The RIFLEX-C coupled analysis program system has been applied for numerical time series reproduction of measured responses from the DeepStar Theme Structures TLP model tests (using the model-themodel approach). Vessel motions as well as tensions in tendons and risers are simulated. Generally, a good correspondence is obtained, and the numerical model is capable of reflecting the major findings from the tests. Some hydrodynamic vessel and mooring/riser parameters have been empirically adjusted against the tests in waves, current and wind. As seen from the resulting statistics and spectra, the simulations predict total responses as well as separate LF, WF and HF components quite well. HF springing is observed as a non-negligible effect in model tests as well as simulations, even though the damping in the model was quite high (10%) probably due to PVC used in tendon models. In real cases, the damping is supposed to be lower. Surge damping is very high (over-critical), due to viscous forces on the hull as well as to the very long tendons and risers. This is also observed in simulations.